God and Complexity

by John C. Glasgow II

Why a new science implies God, if he exists, must be more remote than even skeptics think.

In 1984 scientists from many disciplines including physics, biology, economics, meteorology,computer science, astronomy, and philosophy joined to form the Santa Fe Institute in Santa FeNew Mexico. They established the institute to consolidate investigations into the general natureof the systems studied in the various disciplines. They chose the name ‘Complexity’ to representthe subject of their investigation. Complexity theory deals with systems of any kind and size. Itspurpose is to understand why some systems grow and organize themselves, exhibitingunpredictable, complex behavior, perhaps even intelligence, while others are predictable,repetitive, static, self destructive, or ephemeral. It approaches the subject by developing theorythat works for real systems. This means that complexity is a science, and subject to verification.You can test its theories to the extent that computer simulations, models, and observations ofnature can test theory. To a limited extent it is even an experimental science. We will describe itscontent more completely below. What is surprising is that complexity theory promises todiscredit at least one longstanding argument for the existence of God, namely, the argument fromdesign. There is nothing new in a development of science disturbing religious beliefs. But I thinkthe implications of this new science will be as disquieting to theologians as the moons of Jupiterwere in Galileo's day. If so, the development of complexity theory will have contributed anotherstep in the historical dissolution of religious certainty about the nature of God and the universe.

In the following you must concede certain facts about the nature of the world. In particular, youmust allow that the natural history of the world as discovered by science really happened and isfixed so that even God cannot change it. This is no minor concession. Most religions have theirown version of history. For example, most Christian denominations maintain that God createdthe universe, almost instantaneously, six thousand or so years ago. When they make thatassertion, they leave many questions unanswered. Why do fossils, dating to millions of yearsago, exist? Why is light arriving at earth from stars that are millions of light years distant? Whydoes it appear that the universe has been expanding for the last eighteen billion years? If theyinsist that these inconsistencies are just artifacts of the creation, then they must agree that Godcould just as well have created the universe two seconds ago. Furthermore, God could redocreation with a new set of spurious records at anytime. In denying science they makeinstantaneous creation unassailable, and uninteresting. Most theologians, however, do concedethe validity of science. Perhaps the best demonstration is that scientific creationists try to usescience to reconcile their history with the inconsistencies, or to discredit research that leads toinconsistencies. They would not bother if they did not accept the validity of using naturalrecords to discover the nature of the universe. So, please accept that God, if he exists, cannotchange history and, since science derives the laws of the universe from that history, he cannot ordoes not change the laws of the universe.

Many persuasive arguments regarding the existence of God rely on the assumption of theexistence of the supernatural. E.g., further assume 1) the perfect must exist otherwise it wouldnot be perfect, 2) since the natural world is imperfect the perfect must exist supernaturally, and3) God needs no explanation. The third assumption implies God is perfect. The proof is, youcould assume God is not perfect, but then you would have to explain the imperfections, but by 3,he needs no explanation (reductio ad absurdum). Then, since God is perfect he exists and is asupernatural being (by 1 and 2). The argument is fine (if a bit dependent on semantics) but theconclusion is implicit in the assumptions which are not subject to challenge. From our viewpointsuch arguments are as uninteresting as the argument for instantaneous creation. However,religions go further and assert that God created the natural world (i.e., the universe and us). Thisidea is supported by a more convincing proof for the existence of God; the argument from design.The argument is simply that since the natural world exhibits design, there must be a designer, or,God. The argument is based on the observation of nature and deductive logic so that science,contrary to its usual effect on religious argument, supports it. Let’s briefly review the effectscience has had on western religious thought over the centuries.

Philosophers of the sixteenth century placed man at the center of the universe. They believedGod created the natural world with us in mind. Confirmation came from the fact that everythingrevolved around the world. When Galileo observed moons orbiting Jupiter through his telescopehe provided evidence that some planets did not revolve around earth. The idea was so shockingthat the church held Galileo under house arrest and forbade him to teach his discoveries.Nevertheless, within a few years philosophers reckoned the sun to be the center of the universe.That was not yet correct but it was closer to the truth. The new discovery was a blow to man’svanity, but not necessarily to religious thought. Philosophers could maintain that God was on thejob, deciding every sparrow's fate, causing the winds to blow, and directing the planets in theirorbits.

In the seventeenth century, Isaac Newton showed that simple laws direct all such physicalevents. In his scheme the world resembled a clock. Once put in motion, it operated by its owninternal laws and needed no intervention. Continuous supervision by God was superfluous. Thisknowledge probably did not disturb the average man’s faith. The fact that people feel free tomake arbitrary decisions discourages belief in the idea. Still, by the eighteenth century, Deists(religious radicals who subscribed to the clockwork theory) considered God a benign observer.God, however, remained the Creator. The laws themselves were evidence of his handiwork.

Theologians could take solace in the biblical assertion that God made man in his own image. Itplaced man closer to God than other life. What is more important, it supported the belief thatGod made the natural world with man in mind. Scholars (e.g., Linnaeus) labored to construct theladder of life, arranging all life forms on the rungs of a ladder. God occupied the top rung and thelowest life forms (algae and such) occupied the bottom rungs. Man occupied the rung justbeneath the angels and above the animals. Then, in the mid nineteenth century, Charles Darwinpublished his theory of evolution and knocked man down a rung on the ladder. Darwin’s theorycast doubt on the story of creation in Genesis. The faithful, who accepted the Bible as the literalword of God, had to reject Darwin’s theories. Believers less concerned with literal interpretationscould reconcile evolution and Genesis by viewing evolution as the mechanism God used to createman.

By the early twentieth century scientists were beginning to realize the immensity of the universe.It is vast and expanding. From its expansion we can calculate that it is between fifteen andtwenty billion years old. The earth is four or five billion years old. Life has existed on earth formore than three billion years. Man has been around for only a few hundred thousand years. Oursolar system is a speck in a cluster near a spiral arm of a galaxy containing billions of stars. Ourgalaxy is just one of the hundreds of billions of galaxies scattered throughout the visible universe.From the scientist’s point of view man is a newcomer and insignificant in the scheme of things.

From the theologians point of view the universe is the ultimate evidence of God. The universeundeniably exhibits design. Where there is design, there must be a designer . . . or God. That thisdoes not constitute a proof of the existence of God was pointed out long ago by David Humewho noted that analogy is not proof. But absolute proof is not often a necessary component ofbelief. In particular no one can say that God didn’t design the laws that lead directly, mostfortuitiously, to ourselves. This argument seems to stem the flood of scientific evidence that haseroded man’s certainty of his place in the cosmos, and his relation with God. Maybe God is notdirecting everything moment by moment. Maybe humankind is not the only reason he created theuniverse. Maybe we are just one among many of his creations, and maybe he employed indirectmechanisms to create us, but we can infer that he did intentionally create us. Perhaps, justperhaps, we are the masterpiece among his works and a special object of his love! But, wait.Given the above pattern, might we expect some new theory to challenge this conclusion? I thinkcomplexity theory could do just that.

Complexity theory asserts that the universe is full of, even characterized by, chaotic yetstructured systems whose form and nature evolve unpredictably. That is, for complex systems,perfect knowledge of a set of initial conditions and the rules that govern a system does not implyperfect predictability. In fact, complexity theory maintains that it is impossible to make a perfectprediction about a complex system. The further in the future the prediction, the less precise theprediction can be. For sufficiently far in the future, prediction is a purely statistical endeavor. Incontrast, determinism associates perfect knowledge of the initial conditions and rules of a systemwith the ability to perfectly predict the future of the system. From Isaac Newton’s time to thebeginning of the twentieth century (and the development of quantum theory) scientists thoughtall of the systems in the universe were deterministic. That is why Einstein said “God doesn’tplay dice with the universe.” Scientists now recognize that most natural systems are complex.For our purposes this raises questions about God’s intentions when he created the universe.The universe has been full of complex systems for most, or all of its existence. Remember,complex systems are not predictable, especially in the long run. Remember too, that we havestipulated God does not have the power to go back and amend history. He works forward. Oncehe sets up laws, he cannot or does not change them. In the early history of the universe, space,time, matter, and energy, did not resemble what we see today. The present universe grew andevolved from that very different initial state. Over history complex systems must have workedthemselves out in ways that God could not predict. Because of this, God could not have knownabout us at creation. He could not have known in advance, of our form, nature, and other thingshe supposedly purposely created. Even after life formed on earth, he could not have predictedthat human beings would evolve. We must conclude that we cannot have been an intentionalcreation of God. He cannot have designed us in the full sense of that word. But then, what kindof relationship can we have with God?

Well, maybe God didn’t plan us in advance, but he could be watching over us and be concernedwith our behavior. We can pose a personal God who hears our prayers and perhaps intervenesfrom time to time. Perhaps he even participates in the evolution of the universe. At critical pointshe makes decisions to direct things along a course he chooses. Maybe he didn’t create everythingat once, as described in Genesis, but he can see far enough ahead to mold things to his liking. Hecan’t change the rules and systems already in place, but he can influence those decision pointswhere chance dictates that new structures or levels can arise. He can make the most out of whathe has to work with. This reduces humankind to an opportunistic variation on a theme ratherthan a masterpiece or reason for creating the universe. At least it saves the personal God idea. Ordoes it? The hierarchical nature of complex systems makes even that doubtful.

To understand, consider that everything in the universe exists in a hierarchy. At an early age theuniverse was a two level hierarchy consisting of the level of the universe as a whole, and the levelof the quanta, which were the only things in the universe. Then the quanta formed systems calledparticles. The universe had progressed to a hierarchy with three levels, quanta, particles, and theuniverse. In time the particles formed systems namely hydrogen and helium atoms. The atomsand particles formed gases and plasma in space (more systems and new levels). The gasescollapsed and formed star systems. The stars created the other elements out of the hydrogen andhelium atoms. Chemistry resulted. Planetary systems formed from the matter of exploded stars.On a larger scale, star systems formed (e.g., galaxies, clusters, nebulae). On planets (at least onearth), life emerged from the chemistry, geology, meteorology, and energy flux of the solarsystem. Life evolved in many levels characterized by viral, cellular, multicellular, organic, social,and ecological systems. The process continues throughout the universe as new levels insertthemselves between older levels.

The systems at one level are the objects at another level. Atomic systems are the objects inmolecules. Star systems are the objects in a galaxy. Cell systems are the objects in a tissue, andtissues the objects in an organ. The larger systems come into existence when the objects they arecomposed from, interact according to what we perceive of as rules. Molecules form solids,liquids, and gases according to the rules of chemistry. Galaxies form Globular clusters accordingto the rules of astrophysics. Cells form tissues according to rules of molecular biology andgenetics. Here is the crux of the matter; The emergence of new systems and levels from theinteractions of old systems (objects) is complex. That is, you cannot use knowledge ofconstituent systems, and rules to predict the future behavior of the emerging systems. What ismore important for our purpose, the interactions between systems occur mainly within ahierarchical level, much less so across levels. For example, while at the lowest level galaxiesconsist of quanta, quanta do not interact to form galaxies. Only star systems interact to formgalaxies. Galaxies are immune to the behavior of individual quanta. In general the farther removedthe levels, the less behavior of systems at one level affect (or communicate with) the systems atthe other level. Despite the claim of astrologers, the stars do not guide our destinies any morethan our actions guide the stars. However, adjacent levels do affect each other. Thus if tissue inthe heart dies, the heart can work improperly and the body can get ill or even die. But it is lesslikely that the death of a person will affect the ecology of the world. The amount that one systemcan potentially affect another system is a measure of the distance between their respective levels.So what does this have to do with God?

God, by default, must operate at all levels. According to our supposition he created the basichierarchy, and then guided each level of the succeeding hierarchies into existence. Also by ouroriginal stipulation God has to play by the rules he creates. That is, whatever he causes tohappen must happen through natural means; he cannot go back and erase levels or substitute newrules and systems. That would be changing history. Miracles cannot occur because, by definition,they defy established rules. Intervention from other levels is more problematical. For example,according to the old testament God stopped the sun in the sky to allow the satisfactoryconclusion of a battle. That is impossible because it requires the breaking of a rule at another level. . . the instantaneous cessation of the rotation of the earth violates the first law of motion. TheOld Testament also says that after the flood, God created the rainbow as a promise that he wouldnever again destroy the world by flood. That too, is impossible. If there were no such thing as arainbow before the flood, God would have to change the rules at the level of particle physics toprovide rainbows after the flood. From the point of view of a human, everything that happens,at all levels in the universe, must occur naturally. A storm can destroy the Spanish Armadabefore it can attack England. The English can call it a miracle and thank God. But there is no wayto know if God had a hand in it because a storm is a natural occurrence. The upshot is that wecan never know a manifestation of God for what it is. Nor can we know God as he must be.

Our conscious being exists as a complex system at a level, namely human society. We can neveridentify with or communicate with systems at levels far removed from our conscious being. Wecannot commune with galaxies or converse with quanta. We don’t banter with bacteria or hear themusic of the spheres because those things exist at levels far removed from ours. But God, if heexists, is the God of all levels, and there are many levels. We can never know God at those levelsbecause they are not the level of our existence. Therefore, we can never know the greater part ofGod. And we can never know God at our own level for the reason given in the precedingparagraph. That is we can never know God. If we cannot know him, he cannot be a personalGod.

We have not disproved the existence of God. We have argued, that if complexity theory provesvalid then the ideas that God intentionally created us, and is a personal God are wrong.Essentially we have presented a rebuttal to the argument, based on design, that God designed us,and that he therefore cares about us. This is possible because something termed ‘emergence’ isimplicit in complexity theory. Complexity allows newly created systems and rules to emergefrom old systems and rules. The new systems are creations in that they are not implicit in theold systems. They cannot be predicted from a knowledge of the rules and objects in the oldsystems. The newly created systems exhibit the hallmarks of design, but complexity theoryexplains them . . . there is no need to resort to a supernatural creator.

Further reading

Davies, Paul The Mind of God. New York: Simon and Schuster; 1992.

Waldrop, Mitchell M. Complexity: The Emerging Science At The Edge of Order and Chaos.New York: Simon and Schuster; 1992.